925 

L282 

K7 


&NRLF 


^     3     54-:?     1^3 


I 


Trr~r        -     ^^g  •anivcrsit^  ot  CbtcaQo 


AN  ESSAY  TOWARD  THE  CRITICAL  TEXT 

OF  THE  A-VERSION  OF  "PIERS 

THE  PLOWMAN" 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO   THE   FACULTY   OF   THE   GRADUATE   SCHOOL   OF   ARTS 

AND   LITERATURE   IN   CANDIDACY   FOR   THE   DEGREE 

OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  ENGLISH) 


BY 

THOMAS  A.  KNOTT 


{?  R  ,\ 
OF    IK 


Reprinted  with  additions  from 

Modern  Philology,  VoL  XII,  No.  7 

Chicago,  191 5 


XTbe  lllniversit^  ot  CbicaQo 


AN  ESSAY  TOWARD  THE  CRITICAL  TEXT 

OF  THE  A-VERSION  OF  "PIERS 

THE  PLOWMAN" 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO   THE   FACULTY   OF   THE   GRADUATE   SCHOOL   OF   ARTS 

AND   LITERATURE   IN   CANDIDACY   FOR   THE  DEGREE 

OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  ENGLISH) 


BY 

THOMAS  A.  KNOTT 


Reprinted  with  additions  from 

Modern  Philology,  VoL  XII,  No.  7 

Chicago,  191 5 


ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The  execution  of  such  a  piece  of  work  as  this  would  have  been 
impossible  without  my  incurring  many  obligations.  I  wish  to 
express  my  warmest  gratitude  to  the  authorities  and  the  librarians 
of  the  British  Museum,  the  Bodleian,  Trinit}^  College,  Dublin, 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  and  Lincoln's  Inn,  for  their  courtesy 
and  cordiality,  and  to  the  Duke  of  Westminster,  the  late  Sir  Henry 
Ingilby,  and  Sir  William  Ligilby,  for  the  courteous  and  liberal  spirit 
with  which  they  made  their  MSS  accessible.  Dr.  Furnivall  and 
Professor  Skeat  gave  me  valuable  advice  and  assistance  (and  every 
student  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  is  under  a  heavy  debt  to  them  for 
their  labors  in  locating  the  MSS  long  ago).  Professor  Kittredge 
was  kind  enough  to  give  many  hours  to  the  examination  of  some  of 
my  results.  My  friend.  Dr.  J.  R.  Hulbert,  read  my  MS  and  gave 
me  advice.  Professor  C.  H.  Beeson  also  read  the  article  and  criticized 
it.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  acknowledge  adequately  what  I  owe 
to  my  teacher  and  friend.  Professor  John  M.  Manly,  to  whose 
inspiration  this  study  is  due,  and  whose  training  and  assistance 
have  given  my  work  whatever  value  it  may  possess. 


^7- 


l 


Modern  Philology 


Volume  XII  January  10 1 ^  Number  7 


AN  ESSAY  TOWARD  THE  CRITICAL  TEXT  OF  THE 
A-VERSION  OF  ''PIERS  THE  PLOWMAN" 

The  interest  of  students  of  Middle  English  literature  in  the  Piers 
Plowman  poems  was  greatly  stimulated  several  years  ago  by  two 
articles  by  Professor  John  M.  Manly,  "The  Lost  Leaf  of  'Piers  the 
Plowman'"^  and  "  'Piers  the  Plowman'  and  Its  Sequence."^ 
I  was  so  fortunate  as  to  be  a  student  under  Professor  Manly  in 
1905,  when  his  belief  in  the  diversity  of  authorship  of  the  several 
versions  was  daily  receiving  fresh  confirmation  from  his  investi- 
gations, and  we  recognized  the  need  for  an  adequate  critical  text 
in  order  that  the  differences  between  the  three  versions  might  be 
determined  satisfactorily.  Accordingly,  in  my  first  subsequent 
vacation,  in  the  summer  of  1907,  I  began  the  necessary  work  by 
collating  the  fourteen  MSS  of  the  A-version  as  far  as  8 .  130  (Skeat's 
numbering) ,3  with  the  object  of  studying  their  relationship  to  one 
another,  and  attempting  to  settle  the  existing  uncertainties  of  the 
text.  This  work  I  have  since  been  carrying  on  as  time  and  oppor- 
tunity offered,  and  the  results  I  now  publish  in  this  essay.  The 
critical  text,  with  the  collations,  must  wait  until  similar  work  on 
the  B-  and  C-versions  has  been  finished  (when  all  will  be  printed 

I  Modern  Philology,  III  (January,  1906),  359-66. 

-  The  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature,  II  (1908),  1-42. 

'  This  study  of  the  critical  text  covers  only  the  prologue  and  the  first  eight  passiis 
to  8 .  130  becaixse  it  is  at  this  point  that  Mr.  Manly  (and  I)  believe  the  work  of  Al  ceases. 
This  line  marks  the  close  of  the  most  vigorous,  the  most  readable,  and  the  best  organized 
part  of  the  A-text. 

389]  129  [Modern  Philology,  January.  191.5 


130  , TpoMAS  A.  Knott 

together),  but  the  text  I  hope  to  pubUsh  in  a  short  time  in  the  form 
of  a  reading  edition. 

For  the  A-text  there  are  fourteen  MSS,  some  of  which  unfortu- 
nately are  not  complete,  and  some  of  which  are  not  pure  A-text 
throughout.  A  table  of  these  MSS,  showing  what  each  contains, 
and  where  each  is  defective,  and  where  any  one  is  B-  or  C-text,  may 
be  helpful  to  the  student,  and  therefore  is  appended.^ 

I.  Vernon  Codex.    Omits  1 .  176-83  (178-85)  and  2. 106-21  (111-27). 

II.  Harleian  875.    Omits  6 .  49—7 . 2  (6 .  52—7 . 2) . 

III.  Ingilby.  IV.  Lincoln's  Inn  150.  V.  Trinity  College,  Cambridge 
R  3.14.  VI.  Rawlinson  Poet.  137.  All  practically  complete  save  for  a 
few  sporadic  omissions  of  single  lines. 

VII.  University  College,  Oxford,  45.    Omits  1 . 33-99  (folio  torn  out). 

VIII.  Douce  323.     Omits  3. 120-34  (128-42). 

IX.  Harleian  6041.  Parts  of  ff.  23,  24,  26,  and  27  are  torn  out,  thus 
causing  the  loss  of  7.59-74  (60-79),  82-105  (87-110),  115-36  (120-41), 
145-87  (150-94),  198-218  (205-25),  228-47  (235-54),  258-78  (265-86); 
and  the  loss  of  parts  of  7.53-58  (54-59),  77-81  (82-86),  108-14  (113-19), 
139-44  (144-49),  188-97  (195-204),  219-27  (226-34),  248-57  (255-64), 
279-89  (287-97). 

X.  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  D  4.12.  Omits  7.45-69  (46-70)  and 
7.210  (217)  to  the  end.  7.44  (45)  is  actually  the  final  line  in  the  MS,  but 
7.69a-209  (71-216)  had  been  transposed  in  an  archetype  to  a  position 
before  1.180  (182),  and  therefore  were  preserved. 

XI.  Ashmole  1468.  Begins  at  1 .  142,  because  the  preceding  leaves  have 
been  cut  out;  then  omits  2.18-145  (18-158);  3.30-33  (32-35),  112-226 
(120-235);  7.33-81  (34-86);  8.32-80  (32-81),  all  but  3.30-33  because 
leaves  have  been  cut  out. 

XII.  Harleian  3954.  Is  B-text  to  (B)  5.128,  then  A-text  from  (A) 
5. 106— 8.  Ill  (5. 107— 8. 113),  then  omits  to  9.97.     No  extended  omissions. 

XIII.  The  Duke  of  Westminster's  MS.  Inserts  a  large  number  of 
lines  and  passages  from  the  B-  and  C-texts :  B 1 .  32-33  after  A1.31;  B1.113- 
16  after  A  1.111;  C  3.28-29  after  A  2.20;  C  1.84-87,  89,  92,  98-100, 
102-4  after  A  2.65  (68);  C  3.185-88  after  A  2.130  (140);  C  3.243-48 
after  A  2 .  194  (208) ;  C  4 .  32-33  after  A  3 .  33  (35) ;  B  4 .  17-18  after  A  4 .  17 ; 
B  4.62  after  A  4.48;  B  4.119-22  after  A  4.105;  then  follows  A  108,  then 
B  4. 123-25;  B  4. 152-56  after  A  4. 143;  B  4. 165-70  after  A  4. 145;  B5.36- 
41  after  A  5.33;  B  5 . 49-56  after  A  5 . 39 ;  B  5.60  after  A  5.42;  B  5.87-93 
after  A  5 .  68  (69) ;  B  5 .  120-21  after  A  5 .  98  (99) . 

'  The  line  numbers  in  this  paper  refer  to  the  Critical  Text,  but  in  order  to  facilitate 
reference  until  that  is  published,  I  give  in  parentheses  the  line  numbering  of  Skeat's 
Early  English  Text  Society  edition,  wherever  the  number  in  the  CT  differs  from  Skeat's. 

390 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  131 

XIV.  Digby  145.  No  extended  omissions.  Has  several  contaminations 
from  the  C-text,  especially  in  the  prologue,  which  is  chiefly  C,  with  some 
readings  from  A.  The  other  insertions  are  B  3.52-54,  56-58  after  A  3.45 
(47);  C  7.423—8.55  after  A  5.220  (228);  then  A  5.215-20  (223-28)  is 
repeated;  (Digby  changes  214  (222)  so  that  it  reads  "this  glotoun"  for 
"sleul^e");  C  8.70-154  after  A  5.251  (259);  C  8.189-306  substituted  for 
A  6.31-123  (34^126). 

As  the  basis  of  my  text  I  have  used  MS  R  3 .  14  in  the  library 
of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  represented  in  my  paper  by  "T." 
By  "basis"  I  mean,  of  course,  not  that  I  shall  print  that  MS  as  it 
stands,  nor  with  such  occasional  readings  from  other  MSS  as  may 
"seem  better"  to  me.  On  the  contrary,  the  readings  adopted  into 
the  CT  must  always  be  the  critical  readings,  as  attested  in  every 
case  by  the  weight  of  evidence,  genealogical  and  other.  No  matter 
how  plausible  the  reading  of  T  may  seem,  it  must  not  be  retained  if 
not  supported.  By  "basis"  I  mean,  therefore,  little  more  than  the 
basis  for  spelling  and  dialect,  for  whenever  the  reading  of  T  is  replaced 
by  the  critical  reading,  it  seems  better  to  make  the  latter  conform 
in  spelling  and  dialect  to  T.  Otherwise  we  should  have  a  critical 
text  containing  too  may  inconsistent  forms  and  spellings.  In  every 
case,  of  course,  when  the  apparatus  is  printed,  the  footnotes  will 
record  all  variants  from  the  CT,  including  those  of  T. 

MS  T  was  chosen  as  the  basis  of  the  CT  because  it  is  early 
(shortly  after  1400),  because  it  is  well  spelled,  and  because  it  con- 
tains comparatively  few  individual  deviations  and  errors,  and  there- 
fore probably  requires  less  changing  to  make  it  a  critical  text  than 
any  other  MS.  It  should  be  said  that  the  CT  would  have  been 
exactly  what  it  is,  save  for  dialect  and  spelling,  no  matter  what 
particular  MS  had  been  chosen  for  a  basis. 

The  numbering  of  the  lines  differs  in  this  paper  from  that  of 
Skeat  in  his  E.E.T.S.  and  Oxford  editions,  because  I  have  numbered 
the  lines  of  the  CT,  and  of  course  the  CT  does  not  contain  the 
unsupported  expansions  and  the  spurious  lines,  contained  in  only 
one  MS,  some  of  which  Skeat  admitted  into  his  text. 

The  following  lines  in  the  E.E.T.S.  edition  have  been  rejected 
in  the  CT  because  they  occur  only  in  MS  Harleian  875:1.176-77; 
2.31,  34,  48,  96,  118,  136-39,  141-43,  182;   3.19-20,  66,  91-94,  98, 

391 


132  Thomas  A.  Knott 

234;  5.182;  6.1-2,  5;  7.26;  8.46,  101,  125-26.  One  line  is  re- 
jected because  it  is  in  V  only:  7.286.  In  two  cases  one  line  of  the 
CT  has  been  expanded  into  two  by  V:  5.55-56;  7.157-58;  the 
CT  numbering  in  each  case  is  reduced  to  one  line.  One  line  is  in 
H,  and,  with  some  differences,  in  H2:  2.79.  5.202-7  are  in  only 
UT2AH3;  that  is,  in  one  small  sub-subgroup,  often  contaminated 
from  the  B-text,  and  one  other  MS;  the  lines  are  a  contamination 
from  the  B-text,  and  are  therefore  rejected  from  the  CT.  Lines 
7.71-74,  containing  the  names  of  Piers's  wife  and  children,  are  an 
interpolation,  and  are  therefore  omitted.^  Lines  7.180-81  are  an 
expansion  of  one  line,  and,  though  contained  in  MSS  V,  H,  and  I, 
are  reduced  to  one  line  in  the  CT. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  recount  here  in  great  detail  the  processes 
that  must  go  toward  the  determination  of  a  critical  text.  Adequate 
expositions  of  these  processes  have  long  been  accessible,  especially 
in  the  Introduction  to  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  New  Testament, 
and  in  Edward  Moore's  Contributions  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the 
'^Divina  Comedia,"  "Prolegomena";  and  the  principles  have  been 
admirably  stated  recently  by  Dr.  Eleanor  Prescott  Hammond  in 
her  Chaucer:  A  Bibliographical  Manual,  pp.  106-13. 

The  older  method  of  printing  a  text  was  to  select  an  old,  well- 
spelled,  well-written  MS,  the  readings  of  which  seemed  to  the  editor 
to  give  "the  best  sense."  In  case  of  dissatisfaction  with  a  reading, 
support  for  it  was  looked  for  in  other  MSS,  and,  if  support  failed, 
a  reading  was  adopted  from  some  other  MS  or  MSS  which  the  editor 
thought  gave  the  ''best  sense."  This  "eclectic"  method  was 
unscientific  and  unreliable  for  two  reasons:  The  editor  left  in  his 
text  a  large  number  of  readings  which  gave  "good  smooth  sense," 
but  some  of  which  were  sophisticated,  that  is,  introduced  by  copy- 
ists who  were  practicing  conjectural  emendation;  and  others  of 
which  (introduced  carelessly)  were  intelligible,  but  which  could  not 
be  supported  by  scientific  proof.  Secondly,  this  method  laid  too 
much  responsibility  on  the  unchecked  discretion  of  the  editor,  who 
often  adopted  a  reading  merely  because  it  was  in  the  greater  num- 
ber of  MSS,  and  who,  on  the  other  hand,  often  adopted  readings 
merely  according  to  his  whim  or  his  personal  taste. 

>  Cambridge  History  of  Enylish  Literature,  II,  33;  and  my  forthcoming  article  in 
Modern  Philology. 

392 


The  A-Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  133 

The  dangers  arising  from  the  exercise  of  personal  taste  or  whim, 
and  from  reUance  on  mere  number  of  MSS,  are  avoided  by  the 
critical  method.  A  reading  must  not  be  valued  according  to  the 
number  of  supporting  MSS,  for  a  large  number  of  MSS  may  be, 
and  often  are,  descended  from  one  common  ancestor,  from  which  the 
reading  has  been  transmitted  to  its  descendants. 

The  necessity  is  therefore  evident  for  classifying  all  extant  MSS 
according  to  their  family  relationships,  and  for  constructing  a  family 
tree,  before  anything  is  done  toward  determining  what  readings 
ought  to  be  adopted  in  the  text. 

Two  or  more  MSS,  or  two  or  more  groups  of  MSS,  are  assigned 
to  an  identical,  hypothetically  reconstructed  ancestor,  or  archetype, 
if  they  possess  in  common  a  number  of  clear  errors,  omissions,  and 
additions.  Common  errors,  deviations,  and  omissions  in  two  or 
more  MSS  must  be  due  to  coincidence,  or  to  contamination,  or  to 
their  existence  in  the  MS  from  which  copies  were  made.  If  there 
are  more  than  a  very  few  significant  errors,  the  laws  of  probability 
forbid  attributing  them  to  coincidence.  If  two  MSS,  copied  from 
two  entirely  different  archetypes,  were  afterward  compared,  and 
a  number  of  erroneous  readings  were  transferred  from  one  to  the 
other  by  the  collator,  the  position  of  descendants  of  the  contami- 
nated MS  in  the  family  tree  would  be  very  difficult  to  determine. 
For  these  descendants  would  contain  the  erroneous  readings  and 
deviations  which  were  their  legitimate  inheritance,  and  also  those 
which  resulted  from  the  contamination,  and  the  text  critic  would 
find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  determine  the  real  position  of 
the  MSS.  But  one  characteristic  will  enable  him  to  locate  such 
MSS  with  some  degree  of  certainty,  and  thus  to  determine  which 
are  contaminations  and  which  are  legitimately  descended  errors. 
Omissions  are  not  the  result  of  contamination.  We  have  a  number 
of  A-text  MSS  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  which  contain  readings 
inserted  or  substituted  in  different  or  later  hands  or  inks  than  the 
original  hand  and  ink.^  In  several  of  these  MSS  lines  or  words  are 
inserted  which  were  omitted  by  the  original  scribe,  or  lines  are 
inserted  from  the  B-text.  But  in  no  case  is  any  Une  or  word  or 
passage  expunged.     Possessors  of  MSS  who  compared  them  with 

I  E.g.,  T,  H2,  D.  W,  Di.  Ts,  R,  I,  H. 

393 


134  Thomas  A.  Knott 

other  MSS  seem  to  have  thought  that  their  own  MSS  were  defective 
or  wrong  whenever  they  differed  or  omitted  anything,  but  not 
when  they  contained  hnes,  words,  or  passages  which  the  other 
MSS  omitted.  The  possession  of  any  considerable  number  of 
common  omissions,  therefore,  unless  they  can  be  accounted  for  on 
some  other  definite  grounds,  makes  a  very  strong  case  for  common 
descent. 

Common  ancestry  is  of  course  rendered  more  certain  if  all  the 
MSS  of  a  group  possess  also  a  considerable  number  of  other  variants 
(not  necessarily  errors)  different  from  the  readings  common  among 
the  MSS  of  other  groups. 

It  needs  to  be  especially  emphasized  that  the  common  possession 
of  the  correct  reading  by  several  MSS  is  no  proof  at  all  that  these 
MSS  are  members  of  a  group. 

After  the  genealogical  tree  of  the  extant  MSS  has  been  plotted, 
the  determination  of  the  reading  of  the  Original  in  a  given  passage 
is  usually  comparatively  simple,  especially  if  more  than  two  inde- 
pendent lines  of  descent  from  the  Original  copy  have  been  estab- 
lished. In  the  latter  case,  the  agreement  between  all  lines  of  descent 
but  one  settles  the  text.  In  case,  however,  each  one  of  three  lines 
of  descent  has  its  own  peculiar  reading,  the  determination  of  the 
original  reading  is  beset  with  greater  difficulty.  The  three  readings 
must  then  be  carefully  examined  to  see  whether  one  of  them  may 
have  been  based  on  one  of  the  others.  If  so,  that  settles  the  text. 
Sometimes,  however,  the  three  readings  all  look  equally  hke  the 
reading  of  the  Original.  In  such  a  case,  if  one  of  the  three  main 
groups  has  a  smaller  total  number  of  errors  and  deviations  than 
either  of  the  others,  that  group  should  be  followed  here,  because,  as 
a  matter  of  probability,  it  is  here  less  likely  to  be  in  error  than  either 
of  the  others. 

A  distinction  should  be  made  between  the  Critical  Text  and  the 
Genealogical  Text.  The  Genealogical  Text  may  contain  some 
errors,  as  all  extant  MSS  may  be  derived  eventually  from  a  copy 
of  the  Author's  Original  that  itself  contained  some  errors.  In  a 
few  cases  our  Genealogical  Text  is  not  the  Critical  Text,  which 
must  conjecturally  go  farther  back  than  the  Original  of  all  extant 
MSS. 

394 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  135 

The  Genealogical  Tree 
General  Survey 

It  will  probably  help  the  reader  to  follow  the  detailed  study  of 
main  groups,  subgroups,  and  sub-subgroups  that  must  now  be 
undertaken  if  the  principal  conclusions  are  briefly  summarized  in 
advance. 

First  of  all,  the  Original  of  all  the  extant  MSS  of  the  A-text  of 
"Piers  the  Plowman,"  and  naturally  of  all  the  hypothetically  recon- 
structed archetypes,  was  not  the  Author's  Copy.  That  it  was  not 
is  shown  by  the  presence  in  all  MSS  of  two  breaks  or  gaps  where 
extended  passages  have  been  omitted;^  by  the  insertion  of  a  scribal 
marginal  note  into  the  wrong  place  in  the  text;^  by  the  very  prob- 
able omission  of  one  line;'  and  by  the  omission  of  part  of  one  line, 
making  imperfect  sense.* 

The  fourteen  MSS  of  the  A-text  fall  into  two  main  groups. 
Vernon  (V)  and  Harleian  875  (H)  belong  to  the  first,  x. 

Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  R  3.14  (T),  Harleian  6041  (H2), 
Douce  323  (D),  University  College,  Oxford,  45  (U),  Rawhnson  Poet. 
137  (R),  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  D  4.12  (T2),  Ashmole  1468  (A), 
Harleian  3954  (H3),  Digby  145  (Di),  the  MS  belonging  to  the  Duke 
of  Westminster  (W),  Sir  William  Ingilby's  MS  (I),  and  MS  150  in  the 
Library  of  Lincoln's  Inn  (L)  belong  to  the  second  main  group,  y. 

y  comprises  four  subgroups;  (1)  L,  (2)  I,  (3)  W  and  Di,  and 
(4)  TH2DURT2AH3. 

The  subgroup  TH2DURT2AH3  falls  into  two  further  subgroups, 
one  containing  TH2D  throughout,  the  other  containing  T2AH3 
nearly  throughout,^  while  UR  fall  with  the  latter  group  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  poem,  and  with  the  former  group  throughout  the 
remainder  of  the  poem. 

1  With  5-105  (106)  the  account  of  Envy  is  left  incomplete,  and  the  account  of 
Wrath  is  omitted,  probably  at  this  point.  Between  5.227  (235)  and  228  (236)  are  lost 
some  lines  containing  the  close  of  Sloth's  vow  and  a  transitional  passage  leading  up 
to  the  line  "And  jet  wile  I  jclde  a5en  jif  I  so  muchel  haue."  (See  Modern  Philology, 
III,  359-66.) 

2  The  foiu-'Une  passage,  7.69a,  6,  c,  d  (7.71-74),  giving  the  names  of  Piers's  wife, 
daughter,  and  son,  inserted  quite  erroneously  into  Piers's  remarks  about  his  pilgrimage 
and  his  will. 

3  A  line  about  Wrath  in  the  feflfement,  passus  2. 

*  The  Genealogical  Text  of  4 .  61  is :  "  For  of  hise  handy  dandy  payed." 
5  From  7.69o  to  7.209  (71-216),  T2  goes  with  UR,  while  AH3  form  a  sub-subgroup 
of  equal  genealogical  weight  with  TH2DURT2. 

395 


136 


Thomas  A.  Knott 


Within  the  sub-subgroup  TH2D  we  have  a  still  further  subgroup, 
TH2. 

U  and  R  form  a  separate  sub-subgroup  throughout,  both  when 
they  go  with  TH2D  and  when  they  belong  with  T2AH3. 

The  B-text  is  available  to  settle  doubtful  questions,  as  it  is 
derived  from  a  MS  of  A  not  belonging  to  either  x  or  y.  The  arche- 
type of  B  we  may  call  z. 

The  family  tree  of  the  A-text  then  is  as  follows: 

Original  (not  the  Author's) 


V     H       T     H2    D     U     R     T2    A     H3    I     L     W     Di        B-text 


For  the  modifications  among  TH2DURT2AH3  see  the  subsidiary 
tables  on  p.  142. 

MSS  V  AND  H— The  Group  x 

The  readings  proving  common  ancestry  for  MSS  V  and  H  fall 
into  four  classes:  (1)  clear  errors;  (2)  peculiar  deviations;  (3)  cases 
where  y  alliterates  and  x  does  not;  (4)  lines  omitted  by  x. 

Belonging  to  the  first  class  are : 

Prol.  63 :  But  holy  chirche  and  t'ei  holden  bet  togidere] 

But  holy  chirche  bi-ginne  holde  bet  to-gedere  V; 

An  but  hooly  churche  bygynne  pc  bettere  to  holde  to-gedre  H. 

1.54:  tutour]  toure  HV. 

1.104:  and  such  seuene  ot'ere]  an  al  Ve  foure  ordres  VH(Di). 

2 .  66  (69) :  seignourie]  seruyse  HV. 

3.166  (174):  half]  nekke  VH. 

5.99-100  (100-101):  H  and  V  transpose  the  two  second  half-lines. 

Other  errors  occur  in  2.30,  73  (76),  97  (102);  3.31  (33),  235 
(244);  5.128  (129),  163  (164);  8.78  (79),  103  (105). 

396 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  137 

Peculiar  deviations  are : 

Prol.  53:  from  of  ere]  for  bretheren,  HV. 

1.21:  Nam  none  nedful  but  fo]  Her  naames  beot*  neodeful,  HV. 
5.33:  Let  no  wynnyng  for-wanye  hem]  Let  hem  wonte  non  ei3e,  VH. 
7.91  (96):  putte,  TDiD;  pyche,  LURT2AIH3;  posse,  H;  posschen,  V. 
Also  prol.  76:  1.162;  2.182  (196);  3.15,  143  (151);  4.19,  etc. 

Alliteration  occurs  in  y  and  not  in  x,  presumably  by  error,  in : 

Prol.  14:  I  sai5  a  tour  on  a  toft,  tritely  I-makid] 

I  sauh  a  Tour  on  a  Toft,  wonderliche  I-maket,  VH. 

Prol.  41:  Til  here  belyes  and  here  bagges  were  bretful  ycrammid] 

Til  heor  Bagges  and  heore  Balies  weren  faste  I-crommet,  VH. 

Also  prol.  21,  76;  1.4,  34,  88,  etc. 

Lines  omitted  in  x  are: 
Prol.  50-51,  99-100,  109;  2.28-29;  4.119. 

The  rest  of  the  readings  distinguishing  the  group  VH  are : 

Prol.  32,  52,  58. 

1.9,  22,  39,  68,  72,  78,  90,  98,  105,  121,  127,  134,  139,  155,  168. 

2.4,  9,  23,  58  (61),  64  (67),  70  (73),  80  (84),  81  (85),  84  (88),  104  (109), 
128  (134),  131  (144),  190  (204). 

3.1,  10,  14,  25  (27),  32  (34),  33  (35),  39  (41),  69  (72),  78  (81),  84  (87), 
114  (122),  117  (125),  144  (152),  175  (183),  191  (199),  206  (214),  212  (220), 
214  (222),  223  (231),  242  (251),  251  (260). 

4.1,  17,  24,  39,  50,  66,  69,  77,  78,  112,  128,  140,  144. 

5.8,  50,  57  (58),  66  (67),  98  (99),  133  (134),  158' (159),  170  (171),  175 
(176),  205  (213),  209  (217),  220  (228),  243  (251),  251  (259). 

6.2  (4),  24  (27),  30  (33),  35  (38). 

7.3,  26  (27),  32  (33),  41  (42),  62  (63),  69  (70),  73  (78),  124  (129),  127 
(132),  148  (153),  179  (186),  206  (213),  221  (228),  243  (250),  247  (254),  252 
(259),  253  (260),  274  (281),  278  (285),  281  (289),  284  (292),  294  (302), 
296  (304). 

8.5,  17,  44,  53  (54),  54  (55),  58  (59),  61  (62),  72  (73),  81  (82),  110  (112). 

WD1ILTH2DURT2AH3— The  Group  y 

All  the  remaining  twelve  MSS  belong  to  one  other  main  group, 
y,  though  the  number  of  common  errors  and  deviations  is  small 
compared  to  those  of  x.  The  small  number  of  common  errors  in  its 
descendants,  however,  means  only  that  y  was  a  very  good  transcript 
of  the  Original. 

397 


138  Thomas  A.  Knott 

The  errors  common  to  all,  or  practically  all,  of  the  MSS  of  y  are 
as  follows : 

An  erroneous  omission  occurs  in  5.152  (153).  VH  and  the 
B-text  read : 

Hastou  ou3t  I  pi  pors  quod  he,  eny  hote  spices  ? 

THaDRTaHgWDi  omit  "ou^t  I  pi  pors."  UAIL  omit  "I  pi  pors." 
*'I  pi  pors"  was  accidentally  omitted  in  the  source  of  all  twelve 
MSS,  while  various  archetypes  and  individuals  thereupon  each 
intentionally  omitted  "ou^t,"  feeling  it  to  be  superfluous  and 
meaningless. 

The  omission  of  one  line,  5.162  (163),  from  all  the  MSS  but  one 
small  subordinate  subgroup  is  further  evidence  of  common  ancestry. 
The  line  reads : 

Sire  pers  of  pridye  and  pernel  of  Flaundres. 

It  is  present  in  the  B-text,  in  VH,  and  in  T2AH3,  but  is  omitted  in 
TH2DURWDiLI.  The  subordinate  position  of  the  little  group 
T2AH3  renders  it  impossible  that  the  presence  of  the  line  in  the 
ancestor  of  that  group  represents  the  tradition  from  y,  and  the  fact 
that  the  archet3T)e  of  these  three  MSS  was  not  infrequently  con- 
taminated from  the  B-text  explains  the  presence  of  the  line  in  the 
descendants  of  that  archetype. 

In  5.99  (100)  X  has  "aswagen  hit  vnnepe."  For  "vnnepe" 
y  has  "an  vnche."  The  reading  in  y  seems  to  be  of  the  sort  more 
probably  derived  from  that  of  x  by  scribal  sophistication  than  vice 
versa.  If  this  is  so,  then  the  reading  of  the  twelve  MSS  is  evidence 
of  the  group.  In  6.88  (91)  VT2H3  (H  and  A  defective)  correctly 
have  "ones"  at  the  end,  while  the  MSS  of  y  (except  T2H3)  have  it 
erroneously  at  the  beginning  of  line  89  (92).  The  presence  of  the 
correct  reading  in  the  minor  subgroup  T2H3  means  nothing  but  con- 
tamination from  B,  or  perhaps  conjectural  restoration  in  their 
ancestor. 

In  2.87  (91)  X  has  "hure,"  while  y  has  "mede."  The  reading 
of  X  alliterates,  making  the  line  read: 

WorK  is  Ipe  werkman  his  hure  to  haue. 

This  alliteration  within  each  half-line  is  not  unknown  in  the  A-text. 
Cf.  1.1;  3.199  (207). 

398 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  139 

8.62  (63)  reads: 

Sipen  5e  sen  it  is  so,  sewip  to  Pe  beste. 
"So"  is  the  reading  of  x  and  z.    y  has  "]>us"  ("sop,"  W;   "this," 
Di).     X  alliterates,  but  y  does  not.     The  reading  of  W  is  merely- 
conjectural  emendation,  for  Di,  W's  sister  MS,  has  a  reading  obvi- 
ously based  on  "thus." 

In  1 .  148  the  Critical  Text  is: 

To  hem  fat  hongide  him  hy^e  &  his  herte  t^irUde. 
For  "hy^e"  THgDURWDil  read  "by."  L  reads  ''on  cros."  For 
"him  hy^e"  A  has  "on  hym."  For  "hongide  him  hy^"  T2  has 
"hym  hangyd."  T2A  are  a  minor  subgroup,  and  their  readings 
are  an  obvious  attempt  to  avoid  the  unintelligible  "by,"  by  omitting 
or  changing  it.  The  reading  of  L  ("on  cros")  is  quite  clearly  of  the 
same  sort.  In  view  of  L's  well-known  habit  of  revising  lines  to  gain 
superfluous  alliteration,^  it  cannot  be  asserted  that  L  is  here  deliber- 
ately substituting  "on  cros"  for  "hyge,"  that  is,  removing  alliter- 
ation. The  reading  might  of  course  be  a  careless  substitution  of 
what  amounted  to  a  synonym,  but  it  seems  far  more  likely  to  be  an 
intentional  attempt  to  give  sense  to  an  unintelligible  word.^ 

W  AND  Di 
On  the  basis  of  twenty-one  deviations  and  errors,  W  and  Di 
must  be  assigned  to  the  position  of  one  subgroup  of  y: 
Prol.  44:  For  "knaues"  W  has  "hyne,"  Di  "hewyn." 
1.162:  For  "wi}:^oute"  W  has  "sanz,"  Di  has  "sauns." 
1.163:  For  "lewid  as  a  laumpe  Pat  no  ligt  is  inne,"  WDi  read  "lewed  a 

):^ing  as  a  lampe  wip  outen  lyght." 
2.80  (84):  The CT is " sorewe on )^i bokes "  (for  "bokes"HV have" lockes"). 
For  "bokes"  W  has  "chekes,"  Di  has  "bokes  chekes"  (sic),  with  both 
words  in  the  original  hand  and  ink,  and  with  "bokes"  crossed  out  in 
the  original  ink.  "Chekes"  must  have  been  in  the  archetype  of  WDi, 
but  the  Di  scribe  had  read  or  copied  the  poem  enough  times  from 
some  other  archetype  to  have  a  strong  recollection  of  "bokes,"  which 
he  at  first  wrote.  Then  looking  at  his  copy,  he  saw  that  the  reading 
there  was  "chekes,"  and  he  changed  his  reading  accordingly. 
4.70:  WDi  both  omit  "king,"  though  in  each  MS  the  word  is  inserted  in 
a  different  hand  from  the  original. 

1  See  Skeat's  account  of  this  MS  in  the  E.E.T.S.  A-text,  p.  xxii. 

2  All  MSS  of  y  except  UT2A  omit  "lyk  A  gleo  monnes  bicche"  in  5.195,  and  mis- 
arrange  195-96  (197-98).     y  omits  "hom"  in  5.201  (209). 

399 


140  Thomas  A.  Knott 

5.165  (166):  For  "redyng  king"  WDi  have  "redekyng." 
7.220  (227):  Omitted  in  both  MSS. 

Other  readings  where  both  agree  in  a  deviation  are  in  3.137 
(145);  4.45;  5.9,  125,  145  (146);  6.8  (11);  7.110  (115),  164  (170), 
192  (199),  232  (239);  8.55  (56),  63  (64).  Still  other  evidence  is  in 
5.246  (254)  and8.28.i 

The  Group  TH2DURT2AH3 

Within  the  group  y,  the  MSS  TH2DURT2AH3  constitute  a  sub- 
group. In  2.83  (87),  the  CT  reads:  "For  Mede  is  moylere  of 
mendes  engendrit." 

For  "of  mendes  engendrit"  TH2DUR  (H3A  defective)  read 
"of  frendis  engendrit";  T2,  obviously  attempting  an  emendation 
on  the  basis  of  this,  reads  "fendes."  W  omits  the  line.  VH  have 
"a  mayden  of  gode" — clearly  from  2.96  (101). 

In  5.240  (248)  the  CT  is: 

H  wil  worl?  vpon  me  as  I  haue  wel  desemid. 

For  "worp"  TH2UA  have  "werche,"  DR  have  "wirche,"  T2  has 
"wirke";  "worth"  is  in  LWDiHsIHV.  Here  H3  agrees  with  the 
MSS  outside  the  group,  but  is  undoubtedly  restoring  conjecturally, 
or  perhaps  has  a  contaminated  reading.  That  it  belongs  with  the 
main  group  is  proved  by  its  membership  in  the  sub-subgroup  T2AH3. 
In  3.257  (270)  VHLWAI  read  "kuynde  wit."  TH2D  have 
"kynde  it";  URT2  have  "reson  it";  Di  has  "kynde,"  omitting 
"wit"  (H3  defective).  The  only  difficulty  here  is  the  reading  of  A. 
As  this  MS  is  throughout  this  part  of  the  poem  (1 .  145 — 6.80)  closely 
related  to  T2,  its  reading  must  be  due  to  contamination  or  conjectural 
emendation  (probably  the  former).  The  reading  of  Di  consists  of 
the  omission  of  a  word,  and  is  not  at  all  the  same  as  that  of  the  group 
under  discussion. 

J  5 .  246  (254) .  The  CT  reads  ' '  not  f aire. "  W  has  ' '  no  f erl)er , ' '  Di  has  ' '  no  f arder , ' ' 
T2  has  "no  f error." 

8.28.  The  CT  has  "mysoise."  WH  have  "mesels,"  Di  has  "mysselles."  When 
a  group  of  MSS  appears  as  a  fixed  or  constant  element  in  combination  with  various  scat- 
tered MSS,  if  the  latter  are  clearly  constituted  members  of  other  well-estabhshod  groups, 
then  the  evidence,  I  take  it,  tends  to  argue  in  favor  of  common  descent  for  the  fixed  MSS. 
For  example,  if  we  have  such  agreements  as  AB,  ABC,  ABD,  ABE,  and  if  we  know  that 
C,  D,  and  E  belong  to  other  groups,  the  evidence  confirms  the  group  AB.  This  is  the 
sort  of  evidence  we  have  to  deal  with  hero. 

400 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  141 

In  6.94  (97)  the  CT  reads: 

And  lere  Pe  forto  loue  hym  &  his  lawes  holden. 
TH2DURT2H3  omit  "hym,"  which  is  in  VLWI  (though  V  has  the 
first  half-line  somewhat  changed).     (H  defective.     Di  is  C-text  here. 
A  omits  this  line.) 

In  5.160  (161)  the  CT  has  "nedelere"  ("neldere"  HV). 
TH2DURT2  have  "myllere"  ("mylner"  URT2).  AH3  must  show 
contamination,  for  they  are  here,  as  elsewhere  (5.108 — 7.8),  closely 
connected  with  T2.     (L  changes  the  whole  half-Une.) 

In  4.84  lack  of  alliteration  characterizes  the  subgroup,  which 
reads  in  the  second  half-line,  "he  shal  do  so  nomore."  WIA  have 
"wil"  for  "shal,"  and  LDiHV  have  "wol."     "Wil,  wol"  alliterates. 

The  CT  for  7. 112  (117)  reads: 

We  haue  no  lymes  to  laboure  wip,  lord  pankid  be  gc. 

For  "lord  pankid  be  ye,"  TDRH3  read  "lord  ygracid  be  je";  U  has 
"lord  ygraced  be  pe";  T2  has  "lord  gyff  vs  grace."  A  has  "lord 
grace  be  ^e";  H2  is  defective.  The  CT  is  determined  by  VHWLI, 
which  read:  "lord  ponked  be  pcrw,"  W;  "lord  I  thanked  be  ^e,"  L; 
"lord  pankyd  be  pe,"  I;  "vr  lord  we  hit  ponken,"  VH.  (Di  has 
"lord  I  graced  be  thou,"  which  must  be  a  result  of  contamination.)^ 
In  1.153  the  CT  reads: 

For  Pel?  56  be  trewe  of  joure  tunge,  &  treweliche  wynne. 

Instead  of  "For  pei^  ^e"  TH2DRT2  read  "For  pi."  While  U  agrees 
with  the  other  MSS,  its  position  in  the  subgroup  URT2,  and  in  the 
sub-subgroup  UR,  shows  that  its  reading  here  must  be  a  result  of 
contamination  or  of  emendation  by  a  scribe.  T2  in  fact  has  such 
a  contamination  or  conjectural  emendation.  The  original  has 
"For  pi,"  changed  in  a  contemporary  hand  to  "For  pof  5e."  The 
reading  of  A,  "Thow  ^e,"  must  be  due  to  the  same  sort  of  reason.  It 
is  a  member  of  the  subgroup  URT2A,  and  of  the  sub-subgroup  AT2. 
In  7.209  (216)  TDURT2A  (H2  defective)  have  the  first  half- 
line  wrongly  arranged  so  as  to  follow  the  Latin  of  the  preceding  line. 
TheCTis: 

1  The  exact  situation  here  perhaps  might  be  regarded  as  less  certain  because  of  the 
compUcations  furnished  by  the  B-  and  C-texts.  B  has  "lorde  y  graced  be  ,ie";  while 
C  has  "lord  god  we  l)onket)"  (C  9.135).  But  the  genealogical  positions  of  the  MSS 
attesting  "tsonked,  fionken,"  in  A  render  the  CT  of  that  version  certain. 

401 


142 


Thomas  A.  Knott 


Facite  vohis  Amicos. 

I  wolde  not  greue  god  quaP  peris  for  al  the  gold  on  ground. 

TDURT2A  read: 

Facite  vobis  Amicos  I  wolde  not  greue  god 
QuaP  peris  for  al  Pe  gold  on  ground.^ 

H3  by  conjecture  or  contamination  has  the  correct  arrangement, 
but  that  it  belongs  to  the  group  is  proved  by  its  closeness  in  many 
readings  throughout  here  to  A.  AH3  form  a  sub-subgroup  from 
7 .  69a  to  the  end. 

The  Subgkoups  among  TH2DURT2AH3 
For  MSS  TH2DURT2AH3  three  different  genealogical  trees  are 

necessary  in  the  different  parts  of  the  poem,  as  follows: 

I.  Prol.  1  to  1 .  183  (185).     [The  last  reading  for  URT2  is  1 .  167. 

A  defective  to  1 .  142.] 


H2 


D 


U 


R 


II.  2.1  [first  reading  for  TH2DUR  is  2.163  (176)]  to  7.69  (70); 
7.210  (217)  to  8.126  (130).  [H3  becomes  A-text  at  5.106  (107); 
T2  defective  from  7 .  210  to  the  end.] 


T  H2  D  U  R 

III.  7.69a  (71)  to  7.209  (216). 


H3 


Ho 


D 


U 


R 


Ha 


>  URT2  omit  "I."  UT2  omit  " Qua^  ....  groimd."  For  "Qua])  ....  ground" 
T  has:  "Qua^  peris  for  al  lie  gold  on  Ms  ground";  D  has  "Quod  piers  for  al  ^e  gold  Irnt 
grouel)  on  grounde";  R  has  "for  al  I)e  gold  quod  peris  I)at  growet)  on  lie  grounde"; 
A  has  "  Quot  peris  for  alle  l>e  gold  on  lie  groimde." 

402 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  143 

It  is  most  important  to  note  the  general  principle  of  textual 
criticism  according  to  which  we  require  these  three  different  trees 
for  the  subgroup  comprising  our  eight  MSS.  Briefly,  this  principle 
depends  on  the  fact  that  different  parts  of  the  same  MS  were  some- 
times copied  from  different  ancestors.  MS  H3,  for  instance,  is  of  the 
B-text  to  B  5.128,  and  of  the  A-text  from  A  5.106  (107)  to  8.111 
(113).  In  a  similar  manner,  the  common  ancestor  of  UR  was 
copied  in  the  first  part  of  the  poem  from  a  transcript  of  the  ancestor 
of  T2A.  But  from  about  the  beginning  of  passus  2  to  at  least  8 .  126 
(130)  the  immediate  source  of  UR  was  a  MS  which  was  a  sister  of 
the  ancestor  of  TH2D.  From  7.69  (70)  to  7.209  (216),  moreover, 
T2  was  copied  from  the  ancestor  of  UR,  which  still  belongs  with  the 
group  TH2D,  while  AH3,  still  belonging  to  one  subgroup  attested 
by  numerous  readings,  go  back  to  an  ancestor  which  was  a  sister  to 
the  archetype  of  TH2DURT2. 

TH2D 

Of  the  sub-subgroups  in  this  subgroup,  we  may  first  discuss 
TH2D.  Their  common  errors  and  deviations  run  consistently 
throughout  the  poem,  and  are  many  and  important.  Some  of  the 
most  significant  errors  are: 

3.206  (214):  "mede,"  "nede,"  TH2D. 

7.171  (177):  "an  hepe";  TD  have  "In  helpe"  (H2  defective). 

8.70  (71):  "defraudeth";  H2D  have  "Gyleth";  T  has  "kiUp." 

In  3.82  (85)  TH2D  omit  "meires  and." 

TH2D  omit  3.100  (108)  and  7.174  (180-81)  (H2  defective). 

Deviations  clear  and  important  appear  in  3.169  (177);  4.24, 
148;  5.16,  233  (241);  6.6  (9),  82  (85),  106  (109);  7.168  (174). 

Other  deviations,  not  quite  so  convincing  individually,  but  in 
their  total  supporting  the  group  weightily,  are:  1.104;  2.82  (86), 
123  (129);  4.58,  106,  145,  153;  5.41,  89-91  (90-92),  182  (184), 
237  (245);  6.29  (32);   7.160  (166),  116  (121),  218  (225),  262  (269), 

112  (117),  140  (145),  192  (199),  302  (310);   8.26,  46  (47),  61  (62), 

113  (115). 

TH2 

Of  the  group  TH2D,  T  and  H2  form  a  subgroup.  Clear  errors 
occur  in:    3.71    (74),    "richen,"    "risen,"  TH2;    5.252  (260),  "po 

403 


144  Thomas  A.  Knott 

prongen,"  "pe  wrong,"  THa;  8.10,  "rijtfulliche,"  "rewfuUiche,'' 
TH2. 

Common  deviations  supporting  the  grouping  are  in  1.159; 
2.144  (157);  5.7,  17,  197  (199),  163  (164);  8.125  (129). 

Other  deviations,  some  of  them  weighty,  and  in  the  sum  total 
constituting  conclusive  evidence,  are  in  1.59,  72,  110,  135,  138,  171; 
2.4,  7;  3.90  (97),  107  (115),  116  (124),  210  (218),  239  (248),  255 
(264);  4.48,  73,  119,  129;  5.29,  56  (57),  57  (58),  182  (184),  215 
(223),  251  (259),  254  (262);  6.6  (9),  53  (56),  67  (70),  104  (107); 
7.35  (36),  80  (85);  8.7,  32,  45,  61  (62),  118  (120). 

URT2  FROM  Prologue  1  to  about  1.183  (185)  and  from  7.69a  (71)  to 

7.209  (216) 

The  evidence  grouping  URT2  from  the  beginning  of  the  poem  to 
about  1.183  (185),  and  from  7.69a  (71)  to  7.209  (216)  [T2  defective 
from  7.210  on],  appears  quite  conclusive.  Some  of  the  most  impor- 
tant readings  are:  Prol.  71,  "bunchide,"  "blessid,"  URT2;  1.98, 
"professioun,"  "prophecye,"  RT2  (U  defective);  7.91  (96),  "pote," 
URT2  omit;  7.147  (152),  "ordre,"  "lord,"  URT2;  7.173  (179), 
"bedrede,"  "Were  ey^ed,"  URT2;  7.173,  "botnid,"  "aboute," 
URT2. 

Other  readings  are  in  Prol.  1,  13,  14,  17,  21,  29,  32,  37,  77;  1.23, 
52;  7.76  (81),  98  (103),  99  (104),  104  (109),  116  (121),  127  (132), 
159  (165),  164  (170),  169  (175),  172  (178),  191  (198),  197  (204), 
206  (213),  209  (216). 

After  Prol.  54,  R  adds  two  lines,  and  at  the  same  point  T2  adds 
four,  including  the  same  two : 

.     on  fele  halue  fonden  hem  to  done 
lederes  Pei  be  of  louedayes  and  with  Pe  la  we  medle.  (R) 

Parsons  with  P&ir  proourases  [prouisours  ?]  permutyn  pair  chirches 

With  al  pe  besynes  of  Pair  body  Pe  better  to  haue 

Vicars  on  fele  halue  fandyn  paim  to  Done 

Leders  Pai  ben  of  lovedays  &  with  Pe  lawe  mellyth.     (ToY 

»  U  not  only  does  not  contain  any  of  these  four  lines,  but  also  omits  line  54.  From 
the  fact  that  in  R  the  first  word  of  the  first  added  line  is  omitted,  and  a  blank  space  left 
for  it,  it  has  been  argued  by  Skeat  and  Chambers  that  the  word  must  have  been  illegible 
in  the  ancestor  of  U  and  R.  and  that  U  must  have  omitted  both  lines  because  of  the 
resultant  unintelligibility.  The  fact,  however,  that  U  also  omits  hue  54  seems  to  me 
to  point  to  a  piu-ely  accidental  omission  of  all  three  lines,  rather  than  to  an  intentional 
omission  of  the  two  spm-ious  lines  on  account  of  the  obscurity  of  one  word  in  the  first  of 

404 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  145 

Further  evidence  for  the  relation  of  URT2  is  to  be  found  in  the 
transposition,  common  to  all  three,  of  7.69a-209  (71-216)  to  a  posi- 
tion immediately  preceding  1.180  (182).^  This  dislocation  is  due 
to  the  accidental  transference,  in  the  archetype  of  URT2,  of  the 
inside  leaf  (two  folios,  or  four  pages)  of  the  third  quire  of  four  leaves 
into  the  middle  of  the  first  quire,  also  of  four  leaves.^ 

The  Group  TH2DUR  from  2.1  to  7.69  (70) 

MSS  TH2DUR  form  a  sub-subgroup  from  about  2. 1  to  7.69  (70), 
and  MSS  TH2DURT2  form  a  sub-subgroup  from  that  point  to  the 
end  of  the  poem  (8.126). 

In  2.163  (176)  LWDilATaDVH  read  "And  gurdeth  of  gyles 
hed."  TH2UR  quite  erroneously  read  "gederip"  for  "gurdeth." 
Though  D  agrees  with  the  other  MSS  outside  the  group,  its  reading 

them.  Scribal  habit  was  to  "edit"  an  obscure  or  semi-obliterated  word  into  an  intelli- 
gible word.  We  have  enough  independent  deviations  in  U  to  prove  that  U  had  this 
common  habit  of  editing.  It  is  certainly  hard  to  imagine  a  scribe  who  would  inten- 
tionally omit  two  lines  for  such  a  reason,  or,  indeed,  for  any  reason. 

1  Although  the  dislocated  passage  in  all  three  MSS  precedes  the  same  line  (1.180), 
however,  the  situation  in  two  MSS  (U  and  T2)  is  involved  in  some  difficulty,  which  has 
never  been  adequately  noticed  or  discussed.  In  U  the  line  preceding  the  shifted  matter 
is  not  1 .  179  (181),  as  we  should  expect,  but  2 .  23.  That  is,  1 .  180  to  2 .  23  is  given  twice, 
once  before,  and  again  after,  the  transposed  passage.  In  T2  the  transposed  passage 
follows  not  1 .  179,  but  1 .  182.  Thus  in  this  MS  three  lines  (1 .  180-82)  are  repeated. 
In  R  the  line  preceding  the  dislocation  is  correctly  1.179.  The  latter  MS  undoubtedly 
represents  the  original  condition  of  the  archetype  of  URT2.  But  how  account  for  the 
repetitions  in  the  other  two  MSS  ?  Skeat,  who  discusses  the  problem  in  MS  U,  believed 
that  U  had  been  copied  from  two  MSS  at  this  point  (E.E.T.S.  A-text,  p.  xx).  But 
against  this  it  must  be  urged  that  U  and  the  repeated  fragment  (called  U  by  Skeat) 
have  several  peculiar  deviations  and  errors  in  common,  thus  postulating  a  single  arche- 
type. The  most  probable  explanation  seems  to  me  to  be  that  in  an  immediately  pre- 
ceding ancestor  of  each  MS,  independently,  someone  noticed  the  dislocation  between 
1.179  and  the  adjacent  7.69o.  Then,  either  remembering  (from  some  previous  famil- 
iarity with  the  poem),  or  discovering  that  there  were  some  lines  about  four  pages  later 
that  fitted  in  after  1. 179,  the  possessor  of  the  MS  in  each  case  began  copying  the  cor- 
rectly following  lines  into  the  proper  place  in  the  margin,  or,  perhaps,  in  the  case  of  U 
(as  the  repetition  is  so  long) ,  on  a  bit  of  inserted  parchment.  In  the  case  of  the  ancestor 
of  T2,  the  corrector  stopped  after  three  hues,  the  end — practically — of  a  logical  speech 
and  but  one  line  short  of  the  end  of  the  passus.  In  the  case  of  U,  the  corrector  kept  on 
into  passus  2,  for  some  reason,  perhaps  because  his  bit  of  inserted  parchment  was  just 
large  enough,  to  line  23. 

2  If  we  calculate  about  36  lines  to  a  page,  the  archetype  contained  just  enough  lines 
to  fill  the  foiu"  folios  preceding  the  point  of  incorrect  insertion.  At  36  lines  per  page  the 
dislocated  passage  would  fill  four  pages,  or  two  folios.  At  36  lines  per  page,  the  passage 
between  the  insertion  and  7.69a  would  fill  fifteen  folios,  that  is,  it  would  fill  the  second 
four  folios  of  the  first  quire,  the  eight  of  the  second,  and  the  three  of  the  tliird  preceding 
the  point  of  removal  of  the  dislocated  passage.  The  quires  must  have  been  left  unsewed 
while  being  copied.  The  inside  leaf  of  the  third  must  have  fallen  out,  and  then  must 
have  been  stuffed  back  into  the  center  of  the  first,  instead  of  the  third,  quire,  and  then 
must  have  been  sewed  there.     Afterward  the  copies  were  made,  perpetuating  the  error. 

405 


146  Thomas  A.  Knott 

must  represent  contamination  or  conjecture,  as  this  MS  is  closely 
connected  with  TH2. 

In  3.83  (86)  the  other  MSS  have  "And  told  hem  pis  teeme" 
(except  H,  which  has  "lo  f>is  was  his  teme"),  but  TH2DUR  have 
"And  tok  hym  pis  teeme." 

In  4.19  the  CT  is  "wytful  gerpis,"  the  reading  of  LWDiAID 
("full  wyght  girthes,"  T2;  "swipe  fele  gurpis,"  HV).  TH2UR 
read  "ri^tful  gerpis."  D  again  disagrees  with  the  group,  but 
through  contamination  or  conjecture. 

3 .  240  (249)  is  omitted  in  TH2DU.  It  must  have  been  restored 
in  R  by  contamination  from  a  MS  outside  the  group. 

In  3.137-8  (145-6)  the  CT  has  "to  holde"  correctly  at  the 
beginning  of  hne  138,  while  TH2DUR  have  the  phrase  incorrectly  at 
the  end  of  line  137. 

In  4. 113  the  CT  has  "graue  wip  kynges  coroun,"  but  TH2DUR 
have  incorrectly  "ygraue  wip  kinges  coyn." 

In  5.43  the  words  "ran"  and  "and"  are  omitted  in  TH2DUR. 

Other  agreements,  most  of  them  striking,  are  in  3.99  (107), 
113  (121),  119  (127),  130  (138),  254  (263),  266  (275);  4.4,  154; 
5.16,  17,  34,  71,  (72),  90  (91),  92  (93),  94  (95),  108-9  (109-10),  113 
(114),  130  (131),  215  (223);  6.120  (123);  7.18,  31  (32),  29  (30). 

Several  agreements  group  TH2DURT2  from  7.69a  (71)  to  7.209 
(216).  In  7.72  (77)  TDURT2  (H2  defective)  omit  "pis."  In 
7.75  (80)  TDURT2  (H2  defective)  add  "For"  at  the  beginning  of 
the  line.  In  7.140  (145)  TDUR  (H2  defective)  add  "awey"  (T2 
omits  the  line) .  In  7 .  181  (188)  TDUR  (H2  defective)  have  "  asserue" 
for  "  deserue  " ;  T2  has  "  serue."  In  7 .  139-40  (144-45)  TH2DURT2H 
have  "of  pi  flour"  incorrectly  at  the  end  of  line  139.  (V  has  it  in 
the  middle  of  the  line,  considerably  changing  the  rest  of  the  Une, 
as  does  also  H.)  AHsLWDil  have  the  phrase  correctly  at  the  begin- 
ning of  line  140.     The  error  must  have  occurred  in  VH  independently 

of  TH2DURT2. 

In  7.161  (167)  the  CT  is  "he  jede  hem  betwene"  ("he  jed 
hem,"  H3I]  "5ede  hem,"  H;  "he  wente  hem,"  A;  "he  5ede  so,"  W; 
"had  hyhyd,"  Di;  "busked  heom,"  L;  "I  bot  hem,"  V);  TDUR 
read  "he  hadde";  T2  reads  "pai  abade,"  which  seems  to  be  a  cor- 
ruption based  on  the  reading  of  TDUR.     (T2  omits  "betwene.") 

406 


The  A-Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  147 

TDURT2  omit  7.207  (214)  (H2  defective). 

DURT2  (H2  defective)  misarrange  7.204-9  (211-16)  similarly. 
D,  with  which  the  other  three  substantially  agree,  has  them  as 
follows : 

And  alle  maner  men  t^at  t'ou  myjt  aspyen  Pat  nedy  ben  or  naked 
And  nou5t  haue  to  spende  with  mete  or  with  mone 
late  make  Pe  frendes  }^er  with  &  so  Matheu  vs  teches 
Facite  vobis  amicos  I  wold  not  god  greue. 

T,  which  had  the  line  similarly  misarranged  in  its  "copy,"  has 
arranged  them  more  nearly  correctly,  but  has  had  to  supply  a  con- 
jectural second  half -line  for  line  206  (213).     T  reads: 

And  alle  maner  of  men  fat  t^ou  mijte  aspien 

Pat  nedy  ben  or  nakid  &  nou5t  han  to  spende 

Wip  mete  or  mone  let  make  hem  at  ese 

And  make  Pe  Frendis  Per  mip  for  so  matheu  vs  techip. 

The  CT  for  these  lines  reads : 

And  alle  maner  of  men  Pat  Pou  mi^te  aspien 
Pat  nedy  ben  or  nakid  &  nou3t  han  to  spende 
Wip  mete  or  wip  mone  let  hem  be  Pe  betere^ 
Or  wip  werk  or  wiP  word  whiles  Pou  art  here 
Make  Pe  Frendis  Per  wip  and  so  matheu  vs  techip. 

The  Minor  Group  UR 

The  citations  proving  close  connection  between  U  and  R  are 
probably  more  numerous  and  convincing  than  for  any  other  group, 
except  perhaps  VH. 

The  clearest  errors,  some  of  them  mere  absurd  blunders,  occur 
in  Prol.  85,  where  for  "seruide"  UR  have  "pletiden";  in  2.42  (44) 
for  "teldit"  UR  have  "tight";  in  2.168  (181)  for  "preyour"  UR 
have  "  tresour  " ;  in  3 .  74  (77)  for  "  burgages  "  UR  have  "  bargaynes  " ; 
in  3.169  (177)  for  "menske"  UR  have  "mylde";  in  2.121  (127) 
for  "ioye"  UR  have  "lawe";  in  3.183  (191)  for  "mournyng  to 
leue"  UR  have  "fro  morwe  til  eue";  in  5.60  (61)  for  "in  pe  palesie" 
U  has  "palatik,"  R  has  "paltyk";  in  5.131  (132)  for  "aunsel  dede" 
UR  have  "almesdede";  in  6.29  (32)  for  "to  so  wen  and  to  setten" 
UR  have  "now  and  sithe";  in  7.30  (31)  for  "wastours"  UR  have 
"watris." 

1  For  "let  hem  be  I)e  betere,"  the  reading  of  LWDiAHal,  V  has  "mak  hem  fare  te 
betere";  H  has  "lete  hem  fare  pe  better." 

407 


148  Thomas  A.  Knott 

Both  MSS  omit  lines  2.11,  2.24-25,  5.220  (228),  6.108  (111). 

Other  common  deviations  are  to  be  found  in  Prol.  86,  102,  106; 
1.1,  130,  152;  2.45  (47),  53  (56),  54  (57),  58  (61),  77  (81),  156  (169); 
3.1,  44  (46),  62  (64),  120  (128),  164  (172),  174  (182),  175  (183), 
231  (240),  259  (266),  267  (276);  4.24,  30,  60,  61,  131;  5.37,  57  (58), 
87  (88),  91  (92),  92  (93),  113  (114),  117  (118),  142  (143),  167  (168), 
177  (178),  179  (180),  184  (186),  222  (230)  224  (232),  230  (238), 
252  (260);  6.35  (38),  52  (55),  55  (58),  67  (70),  97  (100),  98  (101), 
103  (106),  104  (107);  7.10,  29  (30),  39  (40),  52  (53),  66  (67),  119 
(124),  140  (145),  213  (220),  233  (240),  238  (245),  279  (287),  283 
(291);  8.21,84  (85),  118(120). 

The  Minor  Group  T2AH3 

The  evidence  for  grouping  T2  and  A  from  1 .  143,  where  A  begins, 
to  5.105  (106),  to  which  H3  is  B-text,  includes:  1.145:  T2A  omit 
"pite,"  though  in  T2  a  different  hand,  in  a  blacker  ink,  has  inserted 
it  after  "peple";  2.9:  for  "I-purfilid"  T2  has  "puryd,"  and  A  has 
" I  purid."  In  3 . 87  (90)  for  '' in  ^oupe  or  in  elde"  T2  has  "in  thoght 
or  in  dede,"  and  A  has  "in  pouth  or  indede."  In  4.38  for  "gade- 
lynges"  T2A  have  "goslynges."  Other  readings  supporting  the 
group  are  in  1.151,  152,  157,  180  (182);  2.5-6,  16,  148  (161);  3.11, 
21  (23),  259  (266),  270  (279);  4.24,  42,  50-51,  58,  47,  67,  82,  98, 
100,  129,  130,  147;  5.23,  31,  32,  77  (78),  78  (79). 

Some  of  the  strongest  evidence  for  grouping  T2AH3  from  about 
5.106  (107)  to  about  7.69  (70)  is:  In  5.145  (146)  instead  of  "forto 
go  to  shrift,"  T2  reads  "to  gang  on  hy  way"  (sic),  A  has  "to  gon 
his  wey,"  and  H3  has  "to  gon  on  hys  weyje."  After  6.81  (84) 
T2AH3  add  three  lines,  the  first  unique,  the  second  and  third  from 
the  B-  or  C-text.  Other  readings  are  in:  5.108-9  (109-10),  114 
(115),  115  (116),  129  (130),  136  (137),  141  (142),  146  (147),  158  (159), 
189  (191),  206  (214),  216  (224),  242  (250);  6.1  (3),  28  (31),  58  (61). 

In  passus  7,  after  T2  has  become  defective  at  line  209  (216), 
some  of  the  evidence  for  grouping  AH3  is:  In  7.218  (225)  WDiH 
have  "mouthed,"  URI  have  "mouthith,"  L  has  "techeth,"  T  has 
"nempnip,"  D  has  "nemened,"  V  has  "Mommcp,"  but  AH3  read 
"mevith,  meuyth."  Other  readings  occur  in:  7.219  (226),  239 
(246),  266  (273);  8.18,  21,  98  (99),  99  (100). 

408 


The  A- Version  of  ''Piers  the  Plowman"  149 

The  evidence  for  the  minor  subgroup  ToA  within  the  subgroup 
T2AH3,  after  H3  has  become  A-text,  includes:  In  5.163  (164)  for 
"dykere"  T2A  read  "Drinker"  (VH  read  " disschere ") ;  T2A  omit 
line  5.165  (166).  In  5.189  (191)  for  "ygulpid"  T2A  read  "gobbyd." 
(H3  has  "I  clobbyd,"  H2D  have  "gluppid,"  HV  have  "ygloppid.") 
In  5.248  (256)  for  "gilt"  T2A  read  "coulpe."  In  6.2  (4)  for  "ouer 
valeis"  T2A  read  "oure  bankes."  In  5.125  (126)  for  "a  pakke 
nedle"  T2  reads  "bat  nedyls,"  A  reads  "abatnedil"  (H3  has  "a 
betyngnedyl"). 

The  group  AH3  subsequent  to  7.69  (70)  is  attested  by  the 
following:  In  7.82  (87)  for  "mynde"  AH3  read  "messe."  In  7. 138 
(143)  for  "pilide"  H3  reads  "pynyd,"  A  reads  "foule  pyne"  (T2  has 
"pelyd").  Other  evidence,  just  as  strong,  is  in  7.172  (178),  174 
(180-81),  183  (190),  189  (196). 

The  Third  Main  Group — z 

A  careful  collation  of  the  B-text,  so  far  as  the  CT  of  B  can  be 
safely  determined  from  the  variant  readings  of  the  E.E.T.S.  edition, 
has  shown  that  B  contains  none  of  the  errors  and  omissions  of  x,  and 
none  of  those  belonging  to  y  or  any  of  the  subgroups  of  y.  This 
leads  us  to  the  obvious  conclusion  that  z — that  MS  of  A  which 
B  used  as  the  basis  of  his  recension — must  have  been  derived  from 
the  Original  in  a  line  of  descent  independent  of  either  x  or  y.  Con- 
sequently, whenever  x  and  y  differ,  but  when  neither  is  clearly  in 
error,  we  have  the  independent  evidence  of  B  to  help  us  in  deter- 
mining the  reading  of  the  Original,  for  when  two  independent  lines 
of  MS  descent  agree  against  a  third,  the  agreement  of  the  two  must 
determine  the  critical  reading.  In  spite  of  the  large  number  of  indi- 
vidual changes  introduced  by  B,  and  in  spite  of  the  number  of  cor- 
ruptions and  errors  in  its  A-text  original,  2,  which  can  be  discovered 
because  the  MSS  of  A  generally  agree  unanimously,  or  nearly  so, 
whenever  B  de\'iates,  B  is  thus  of  the  greatest  value  to  the  student 
of  the  A-text.  It  is  only  when  we  have  three  different  readings,  one 
in  X,  one  in  y,  and  another  in  z,  and  when  neither  x  nor  y  is  obviously 
correct,  that  we  are  without  reliable  genealogical  evidence  of  the 
reading  of  the  Original  of  A.  In  cases  like  this,  we  are  logically 
obliged  to  follow  the  readmg  of  that  group  which  is  less  often  in 

409 


150  Thomas  A.  Knott 

error  whenever  error  can  be  determined.  As  y  furnishes  a  much 
better  tradition  than  x,  we  must  therefore  rely  upon  y  in  cases  of 
this  sort.  The  CT,  of  course,  can  never  safely  adopt  the  reading 
of  B  alone,  however  tempting  that  reading  may  appear.^ 

Chambers  and  Grattan  on  the  Critical  Text 

Students  who  compare  this  account  of  the  genealogical  relations 
of  the  MSS  of  the  A-version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  with  that 
given  several  years  ago  by  R.  W.  Chambers  and  J.  H.  G.  Grattan,^ 
and  who  have  read  Mr.  Chambers'  later  paper^  in  which  he  discusses 
some  matters  of  the  text,  will  note  some  wide  discrepancies  between 
their  results  and  mine.  Nine  MSS  (LIWDiDURAHs)  are  either  not 
located  in  their  genealogical  tree  or  in  whole  or  in  part  are  located 
elsewhere  than  in  mine.  Such  different  results  cannot  be  due  to 
mere  difference  in  opinion.     How  then  are  they  to  be  accounted  for  ? 

First,  the  method  employed  by  these  students  has  been  at  fault; 
secondly,  they  have  stated  their  opinions  before  they  have  had  the 
necessary  material  in  hand  to  formulate  sound  opinions;  and,  thirdly, 
they  have  not  collected  the  evidence  afforded  by  MS  readings  which 
were  perfectly  accessible. 

The  most  serious  fault  in  their  presentation  is  that  they  cite 
almost  no  specific  evidence  whatever  for  their  classification  of  the 
MSS.  They  cite  none  of  the  errors  and  deviations,  either  by  quota- 
tion or  line  number,  which  they  have  made  the  basis  of  their  classi- 
fication. Consequently,  other  students  who  would  like  to  know 
what  Chambers  and  Grattan  regard  as  errors,  significant  or  insig- 
nificant, are  left  absolutely  in  the  dark.* 

In  view  of  their  subsequent  erroneous  location  of  several  MSS, 
one  would  say  that  the  establishment  of  their  group  Tau  (which 
comprises  part  of  my  group  y)  is  a  matter  of  the  greatest  importance. 

1  It  is  well  to  call  attention  to  the  insecurity  of  the  text  of  B.  Skeat  has  collated 
only  six  of  the  fifteen  MSS  of  that  text,  and  our  information  may  therefore  sometimes  be 
inadequate  to  settle  the  critical  reading.  It  will  require  some  years,  however,  to  collate 
all  the  other  MSS  of  B,  and  in  the  meantime  we  shall  have  to  rely  on  the  tentative  text 
ascertainable  from  our  incomplete  materials.  It  may  ultimately,  therefore,  bo  necessary 
to  revise  a  few  of  our  readings  of  A,  which  are  sound  only  in  so  far  as  we  can  now  determine 
the  CT  of  B. 

J  '"pjjg  Text  of  'Piers  Plowman,'  "  Modern  Language  Review,  IV,  357-89. 

3  "The  Original  Form  of  the  A-Text  of  'Piers  Plowman,"  "  ibid.,  VI,  302-23. 

«  Soo  Modern  Language  Review,  IV,  372,  380,  382. 

410 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  151 

Yet  for  their  grounds  we  are  merely  referred  to  Skeat's  E.E.T.S. 
footnotes:  "There  is  no  necessity  to  argue,  what  has  been  recognized 
by  all  students  of  the  subject,  that  V  and  H  form  one  group,  and 
T  and  U  another.  If  anyone  wishes  to  satisfy  himself  of  this  afresh, 
five  minutes'  study  of  Skeat's  footnotes,  taken  at  random  anywhere, 
would  prove  it."^ 

Five  minutes  of  study  at  random  has  failed  to  reveal  the  whole 
truth  about  T  and  U  to  Chambers  and  Grattan.  If  Skeat's  cited 
MSS  were  the  only  ones  extant,  then  V  and  H  would  form  one  main 
group,  and  T  and  U  would  be  the  main  representatives  of  the  other 
main  group.  But  many  more  MSS  are  extant.  And  attentive 
study  shows  that  T  and  U  are  not  primary  representatives  of  a  main 
group,  but  are  merely  members  of  a  subgroup  of  that  main  group. 
The  latter  fact  is  of  the  most  vital  importance  when  the  text  critic 
attempts  to  locate  other  MSS  in  his  tree,  and  when  he  begins  to  use 
his  tree  to  establish  the  CT.  Chambers  and  Grattan  derive  MSS 
L  and  I,  for  example,  immediately  from  the  Original,  because  L  and 
I  do  not  seem  to  them  to  possess  the  most  striking  errors  in  T  and  U. 
But  the  most  frequent  and  most  striking  errors  common  to  T  and 
U  are  due  to  several  intervening  layers  of  MSS  between  TU  and  y, 
while,  as  we  have  seen,  L  and  I  are  descended  from  y  in  lines  separate 
from  the  TU  line. 

Still  another  imperfection  in  Chambers  and  Grattan's  method 
is  disclosed  in  their  method  of  classifying  MSS  W  and  Di.  They 
assign  these  two  MSS  to  a  subgroup  along  with  T  and  H2  because 
all  four  add  the  C-text,  from  C  12.297  on,  to  the  end  of  the  eleventh 
passus  of  the  A-text.  This  grouping  is  made  by  Chambers  and 
Grattan  in  ignorance  of  what  would  have  been  immediately  dis- 
closed by  a  line-by-line  collation  of  T,  H2,  W,  and  Di,  namely,  that 
W  and  Di  throughout  their  A-text  parts,  not  only  are  not  members 
of  the  little  sub-subgroup  TH2,  but  are  not  even  members  of  the 
much  larger  group  TH2DURT2AH3.  W  and  Di  are  descended,  as 
I  have  shown,  from  y  in  a  line  independent  of  any  other  subgroup 
of  y. 

There  are  many  other  instances  of  faulty  method,  but  I  select 
only  a  few.     For  example,   Chambers  and  Grattan  assume  that 

I  Ibid.,  IV,  373. 

411 


152 


Thomas  A.  Knott 


MS  D  occupies  a  "middle"  position  between  TH2  and  RUTg. 
"Here  and  there,  though  rarely,  D  will  enable  us  to  get  a  better 
reading  than  either  T  or  RU  supply;  but  D's  chief  function  will  be 
to  decide  the  balance  between  the  readings  of  T  and  of  RU,  where 
these  differ  without  a  clear  advantage  on  either  side."^  Their  tree 
for  the  MSS  would  be  as  follows: 


Ho 


D 


U 


R 


T, 


But  we  have  seen  that  D  is  grouped  with  TH2  by  thirty-six  errors 
and  deviations.     The  correct  tree  therefore  must  be : 


T  H2  D  U 

While,  through  the  middle  of  the  poem  it  is : 


R 


H2 


D 


U 


R 


T2  (AHs) 


According  to  this  correct  tree,  whenever  D  at  a  given  point  agrees 
with  URT2  (AH3)  that  agreement  establishes  the  CT  for  the  whole 
subgroup.  Before  2.1,  and  after  7.70  (75),  the  two  readings, 
TH2D  and  URT2,  are  of  equal  genealogical  weight,  and  the  choice 
between  them  must  be  made  on  the  basis  of  readings  outside  the 
subgroup.  From  2.1  to  7.69,  however,  the  reading  of  TH2D  is 
subordinate  genealogically  to  that  of  URT2  (AH3),  and  the  latter 
three  (or  five)  establish  the  reading  of  the  archetype  common  to  all 
six  (or  eight). 

Again,  by  their  own  admission.  Chambers  and  Grattan  seriously 
disturb   one's   confidence  in   their   ability  to   distinguish   between 

1  Modern  Language  Review,  IV,  379. 

412 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  153 

inferior  and  superior  readings.  They  even  admit  that  they  cannot 
always  observe  when  a  reading  which  they  suppose  to  be  "inferior" 
is  peculiar  to  a  group,  and  when  it  is  actually  attested  in  the  CT  by 
its  presence  in  half  of  the  MSS  of  the  other  main  group.  In  dis- 
cussing the  position  of  L,  for  example,  they  say  that  they  "have 
judged  TU  inferior  to  VH"  in  twenty-two  instances.^  They  find 
that  L  agrees  with  VH  in  fifteen  cases,  is  wanting  in  one,  and  agrees 
with  TU  in  six.  Then  they  scrutinize  these  six,  and  discover  that 
they  are  not  really  inferior  after  all.  Furthermore,  they  point  out 
themselves  that  in  two  of  these  six  the  reading  which  they  have 
adjudged  inferior  is  not  pecuhar  to  TU  alone,  but  is  supported  by 
H  of  the  other  main  group.  The  readings  which  they  beheved 
inferior  were  the  critically  attested  readings! 

But  they  practically  destroy  whatever  confidence  one  has  left 
in  their  judgment  when  they  come  to  the  discussion  of  the  position 
of  I.  They  find  that  I  agrees  with  TU  in  eleven  of  the  twenty-two 
readings  in  which  they  beheve  TU  to  be  inferior,  the  eleven  including 
the  above-mentioned  six  doubtful,  which  they  again  dismiss  as 
"inconclusive."  Then  they  say:  "The  five  remaining  cases  are 
not  very  conclusive  either."  So  that  just  one-half  their  "inferior" 
readings  seem  inconclusively  inferior  when  Chambers  and  Grattan 
wish  to  be  rid  of  them.  Here  again  the  reader  wishes  that  citations 
of  these  readings  had  been  given,  so  that  some  means  of  testing 
these  curious  results  might  be  available. 

A  case  of  loose  thinking  or  loose  phrasing  appears  on  p.  381: 
"Further,  there  are  passages  where  a  very  early  corruption  has  crept 
in,  which  is  common  to  both  the  VH  group  and  the  TU  group  [italics 
mine].  Here  L  sometimes  shows  a  reading  superior  to  that  of  either 
group.     An  example  is  the  line  referred  to  above,  p.  368  [2.83  (87)]: 

For  Mede  is  moylere  of  Amendes  engendred. 
Let  us  see  the  "corruption  ....  which  is  common  to  both  the 
VH  group  and  the  TU  group."     THsDURTa^  read: 
For  mede  is  molere^  of  frendis*  engendrit. 

^  Ibid..  IV,  381. 

-  A  defective  here;   Hs  is  B-text  at  this  point;  W  omits  the  line. 
'  "molere]  medlere,"   H2;    "mulyer,"   D;    "muliere,"   URT2;    "moilloMJ*,"   L;    "a 
mewliere,"  Di;   "moylere,"  I. 

«  "frendis]  fendes,"  Ts;  "frendis  of  frendis,"  U  (.sic). 

413 


154  Thomas  A.  Knott 

VHread: 

For  Meede  is  a  luwelere*  A  Mayden  of  goode. 

LDil  read : 

For  mede  is  moillour^  of  mendes  engendred. 

One  may  legitimately  ask,  Where  is  the  corruption  common  to 
both  the  VH  group  and  the  TU  group  ?  For  there  is  no  connection 
whatever  between  the  VH  reading  and  the  TU  reading.  The  former 
is  only  the  second  half -line  of  2.96  (101),  while  the  latter  is  obviously 
descended  from  an  entirely  different  error,  or  a  gratuitous  scribal 
emendation,  in  the  parent  MS  of  the  TU  group.  There  is  no  "com- 
mon corruption"  in  the  two  groups.  If  there  were,  and  if  the  cor- 
ruption were  not  present  in  LDil,  the  consequences  upon  the  tree 
would  be  very  great. 

The  reason  for  many  of  the  faults  which  we  have  seen  is  not 
far  to  seek.  The  study  was  printed  before  all  the  evidence  wajS 
adequately  examined,  or  even  collected.  In  their  first  paper  the 
authors  say:  "Many  of  the  above  suggestions  are  put  forth  only 
tentatively;  for  we  have  not  yet  had  time  to  sift  thoroughly  our 
transcripts  and  collations."'  Over  two  years  later  Chambers  says: 
"I  have  not  yet  collated  W  up  to  this  point."  [The  end  of 
passus  ll.p 

Finally  we  may  mention  some  of  the  conclusions  which  Chambers 
and  Grattan  would  never  have  reached  if  they  had  collected  and 
examined  all  the  evidence. 

Because  U  and  R  are  clearly  to  be  grouped  with  T2  (their  E) 
in  the  early  part  of  the  poem,  the  three  MSS  are  indiscriminately 
grouped  together  throughout  as  one  subgroup  of  y  (their  Tau). 
But,  as  I  have  shown  above,  for  over  five  passus  (2. 1 — 7.69)  U  and 
R  belong  in  a  subgroup  with  TH2D,  while  elsewhere  UR  belong 
in  a  subgroup  with  T2AH3. 

The  Ashmole  MS  is  dismissed  in  less  than  two  lines:  "Ashmole 
1468  combines  all  possible  faults.  It  is  imperfect,  corrupt,  and 
contaminated  by  B-  or  C-influence."^ 

Regarding  H3,  Mr.  Chambers  writes:  "Mr.  Grattan  and  myself 
have  so  far  been  unable  to  trace  any  special  affinities  of  Harleian 

1  "luwcler]  mcdoler,"  H.  '  Modern  Language  Review,  IV,  383. 

2  See  note  3,  p.  153.  « Ibid..  VI.  313.  '  Ihid.,  IV,  383. 

414 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  155 

3954  to  any  other  MS  or  group  of  MSS.  It  is  therefore  an  inde- 
pendent witness,"  etc.^ 

But  as  I  have  shown  above,  H3,  A,  and  T2  are  bound  together 
into  a  minor  subgroup  by  a  very  large  number  of  common  errors 
and  variations;  and  most  of  the  contaminations  from  the  B-text 
in  MS  A  are  in  the  source  of  all  three  MSS. 

It  is  especially  important  to  consider  how  Chambers  and  Grattan 
have  dealt  with  MSS  L  and  I.  They  wish,  if  possible,  to  discover 
a  MS  which  does  not  belong  to  either  of  their  two  main  groups,  for 
they  wish  to  use  this  independent  MS  to  determine  the  CT  when- 
ever their  main  groups  differ,  but  when  neither  one  is  clearly  in  error. 
Such  a  MS  they  believe  they  have  found  in  L.  In  discussing  the 
genealogical  position  of  this  MS,^  they  point  out  that  it  usually 
agrees  with  TU  when  VH  are  in  error,  and  with  VH  when  TUD 
seem  to  them  to  have  readings  "inferior  to  VH." 

But  L  cannot  be  excluded  from  group  y  merely  on  the  ground  that 
it  usually  seems  to  have  the  correct  reading  when  TUD  appear  to 
be  wrong.  For  I  have  shown  that  TUD  are  three  members  of  one 
subgroup  of  y,  and  for  over  five  passus  members  of  a  sub-subgroup, 
and  that  WDi  and  I  comprise  two  independent  subgroups  of  y. 
Hence  the  important  question  is.  Does  L  invariably  contain  the 
correct  reading  when  WDi,  I,  and  TH2DURT2AH3  all  in  common 
contain  a  wrong  reading  ?  I  have  shown  that  in  a  number  of  cases 
all  these  MSS,  including  L,  have  an  incorrect  reading  or  an  erroneous 
omission.  As  L  contains  no  significant  deviations  in  common  with 
any  of  the  other  three  subgroups  of  y,  aside  from  those  possessed  by 
all,  it  therefore  constitutes  a  fourth  subgroup  of  y. 

In  MS  I  Chambers  and  Grattan  believe  they  have  found  another 
independent  line  of  transmission  from  the  Original,  with  perhaps  a 
few  deviations  in  common  with  x,  and  a  few  in  common  with  y.^ 
I  have  shown,  however,  that  I  is  a  member  of  y,  though  not  of  the 
subgroup  TH2DURT2AH3. 

The  essential  unsoundness  of  any  critical  text  based  on  the 
assumption  that  L  and  I  are  descended  from  the  Original  in  a  line 
of  descent  independent  of  any  other  group  of  MSS  is  so  obvious  as 
to  require  no  comment. 

1  Ibid.,  VI,  312.  2  Ibid.,  IV,  380  fl.  «  Ibid.,  IV,  382-83. 

415 


156  Thomas  A.  Knott 

Determining  the  Critical  Text 

In  this  last  part  of  my  study  I  shall  discuss  several  concrete 
problems  of  the  sort  that  are  encountered  in  the  actual  construction 
of  the  critical  text,  after  all  the  preliminary  work  of  determining  the 
genealogical  tree  has  been  completed,  and  shall  try  to  show  how  the 
tree  is  used  in  deciding  the  critical  readings. 

It  would  take  too  long  for  me  to  speculate  fully  on  all  the  psy- 
chological and  mechanical  reasons  for  the  various  sorts  of  errors, 
but  one  or  two  remarks  may  be  offered.  The  "average"  mediaeval 
scribe  utterly  lacked  the  modern  typographical  compositor's  ideal 
of  conscious  fidelity  to  his  "copy."  If  he  was  careless  or  stupid,  he 
introduced  several  kinds  of  misreadings  into  his  copy,  or  omitted  lines 
or  words.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  was  a  careful  or  critical  reader 
of  his  "copy,"  he  was  likely  to  change  the  sense  if  he  thought  it 
could  be  improved,  thus  indulging  in  what  we  now  call  "conjectural 
emendation,"  or  even  editorial  rewriting.  Sometimes  the  possessor 
of  a  MS  compared  it  with  another  copy  of  the  same  work,  and, 
noticing  differences  between  the  two  copies,  scratched  out  the  words 
of  one  MS  and  substituted  those  of  the  other,  or  added  lines  not 
in  his  MS.  We  have  a  great  many  cases  of  this  in  MSS  H  and  H2, 
and  sporadic  cases  of  it  in  a  number  of  other  MSS  of  the  A-text. 
A  later  copy  of  a  MS  which  had  thus  been  "corrected"  would  nat- 
urally reproduce  only  the  "revised"  readings,  and  the  modern  text 
editor  would  perhaps  encounter  considerable  difficulty  in  placing 
such  a  contaminated  MS  in  his  tree.  Some  contaminations  got  in 
unconsciously  because  the  scribe  was  previously  familiar  with  the 
work  through  copying  it  or  reading  it  in  a  MS  belonging  to  some 
other  family  branch.  While  carrying  a  line  in  his  mind  between 
reading  it  in  his  "copy"  and  writing  it  down,  he  might  unconsciously 
substitute  a  formerly  read  or  written  term  for  the  one  in  his  "copy." 
The  substitution  of  inferior  or  non-alliterating  readings,  often 
synonyms,  must  have  been  an  unconscious  process.  The  scribe 
merely  reproduced  the  meaning  of  the  line  substantially,  without 
caring  for  exactness.  And  there  must  have  been  many  shades  and 
sorts  of  errors  between  the  conscious  emendations  and  contaminations 
and  the  unconscious  substitutions. 

416 


The  A-Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  157 

Then  there  are  errors  due  to  mis-seeing,  or  to  mishearing,  or  to 
purely  mechanical  miswriting.  One  letter  may  be  misread  for 
another  with  a  similar  shape,  "h"  and  "b,"  "t"  and  "c,"  "n" 
and  "u,"  "e"  and  "o,"  "b"  and  "1"  are  pairs  of  letters  one  of 
which  might  be  easily  misread  or  miswritten  for  the  other.  Words 
such  as  "lene,"  "leue,"  "loue"  might  thus  be  substituted  for  one 
another.  Or  "hye,"  "by,"  or  "ac,"  "at,"  or  "beste,"  "leste" 
might  be  confused.     All  these  are  variants  to  be  found  in  our  MSS. 

The  so-called  "errors  of  mishearing"  might  occur  in  one  of  two 
ways.  "Copy"  may  have  been  read  aloud  by  one  scribe  and  written 
by  another  or  others,  though  there  is  little  positive  evidence  that 
this  method  was  practiced  in  the  Middle  Ages.  These  errors  seem 
to  me  to  have  much  more  probably  occurred  in  the  work  of  scribes 
who  belonged  to  what  psychologists  call  the  "auditory  type" — 
individuals  who  remember  in  auditory  images.  Such  persons  most 
naturally  read  aloud,  or  imagine  vividly  that  they  read  aloud,  mate- 
rial that  they  wish  to  copy.  My  theory  is  that  most  errors  of  this 
type  in  mediaeval  MSS  occurred  in  this  way,  and  not  through  a 
mishearing  of  what  was  being  read  aloud  by  another. 

We  are  now  ready  to  discuss  some  concrete  problems. 

The  easiest  sort  of  error  to  eliminate  is  the  single  reading  of 

T  (our  base),  when  all  the  other  MSS  agree  against  it.     One  case 

occurs  in  1 .  49 : 

Cesar  fey  seide  we  se  wel  ichone. 

"pey]  panne,"  T;  "pey  rest." 

The  reading  peculiar  to  one  sub-subgroup  is  the  next  to  the 
easiest  to  eliminate.     One  occurs  in  5. 16: 

Prries  and  plomtrees  wern  puffed  to  Pe  erpe. 

"plomtrees]  plantes,"  TH2D. 

Even  the  reading  of  a  whole  main  group  must  be  held  to  be  of 

no  weight  critically  if  the  other  main  groups  agree  against  it.     A  case 

is  in  1.37: 

t'at  is  fe  wrecchide  world  Pe  to  betray e. 

"wrecchide,"  THsDRTsLWDil^;  "wicked,"  HV  (UAH3  defective). 
These  three  problems  are  all  simple.     A  more  comphcated  one 
comes  in  Prol.  42 : 

Fayteden  for  here  foode  foujten  at  Pe  ale. 
417 


158  Thomas  A.  Knott 

"Fayteden  H]  Flite  p>aime,"  T;  "Faytowrs,"  Hz;  "Flytteden  &," 
D;  "pei  fliten,"  URTa;  "Faytours/' L;  "They  failed,"  W;  "And 
flyted  fast,"  Di  (Di  is  full  of  contaminations  from  the  C-text  in  the 
Pro!.,  but  the  C-text  here  reads  " Faytynge ") ;  "Fayted,"  I;  "Fey- 
neden  hem,"  V;  "Fayteden,"  z  (AH3  defective).  The  reading  of 
TDURT2  supports  "Fliten"  for  this  subgroup  of  y.  H2  must  be 
a  contamination.  But  L,  I,  and  W  support  "Fayteden."  Di  goes 
strongly  against  its  sister,  W,  in  favor  of  "Fliten,"  for  Di's  reading, 
which  is  in  disagreement  with  that  of  the  C-text,  must  be  the  original 
reading  of  its  A-text  ancestor.  "Fayteden"  of  H  is  supported  by 
"Feyneden  hem"  of  V,  which  seems  to  be  a  substitution  of  a  synonym 
for  H's  reading,  the  reading  of  x.  "Fayteden"  in  z  supports  H 
(and  re)  and  practically  three  of  the  subgroups  of  y.  The  CT  must 
therefore  be  "Fayteden." 

A  more  complicated  problem,  or  pair  of  problems,  is  to  be  found 
in  5.221  (229). 

panne  sat  sleuj^e  vp  &  seynide  hym  faste. 

"seynide  hym  faste,"  TH2U];  "semed  hym  faste,"  D;  "shryned  {or 
shryued?)  him  faste,"  R;  "signed  him  faste,"  L;  "sayned  hem 
fast,"  W;  "seynyd  hym  ofte,"  Di;  "schraffe  hym  full  fast,"  T2; 
"syhed  ful  faste,"  A;  "syhede  faste,"  H3;  "crowchid  him  fast,"  I; 
"seidetohymsiluen,"  H;  "sikede  sore,"  V;  "seyned  hym  swithe,"  z. 
Three  branches  of  y  attest  "seynide" — L,  WDi,  and  I,  which 
has  an  obvious  substitution  of  a  synonym — "crossed"  for  "signed." 
Of  the  fourth  subgroup  of  y,  four  MSS  (all  belonging  to  one  sub- 
subgroup)  support  "seynide."  They  are  TH2DU.  R,  the  sister 
of  U,  with  "shryned,"  an  error  due  to  an  imperfect  auditory  image, 
illuminates  the  step  that  must  have  existed  in  the  ancestor  of  T2, 
which  had  "shryned,"  which  in  turn  was  misread  "shryued,"  and 
then  changed  to  "schraffe";  "syhed"  in  AH3  looks  Uke  the  result 
of  a  careless  visual  image  of  "syned,"  or  perhaps  of  some  mechanical 
carelessness  at  some  stage  of  transmission.  The  reading  of  x  can 
hardly  be  reconstructed  with  certainty,  but  x  was  so  careless  that 
the  reading  may  have  been  that  of  H,  "seide  to  hymsyluen";  for 
"seide"  may  have  resulted  from  the  omission  of  the  horizontal 
nasal  stroke  from  above  the  "i."  V's  "sykede  sore"  may  be  an 
attempt  to  improve  some  such  reading  as  that  of  H,  or  it  may  be  for 

418 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  159 

"sihede,"  which  may  have  arisen  in  the  same  way  that  it  did  in  AH3. 
We  see  then  that  two  and  a  half  of  the  four  subgroups  of  y  have 
"seynide,"  while  the  other  MSS  of  y  have  readings  probably  or 
obviously  derived  from  "seynide."  z  has  "seyned."  Both  V  and 
H  may  come  from  "  seynide."     The  CT  must  therefore  be  "  seynide. " 

As  the  last  word  in  the  hne,  y  has  "faste,"  and  z  has  "swipe." 
X  is  not  certain,  but  may  have  had  V's  reading,  "sore."  z  and  x 
have  four  alliterating  syllables  in  the  line,  an  arrangement  of  course 
not  unknown  to  the  A-text,  but  rather  unusual.  Further,  z's  incli- 
nation to  change  readings  rather  whimsically  casts  a  great  deal  of 
doubt  on  "swithe."  x  has  such  a  multitude  of  clear  errors,  devia- 
tions and  demonstrable  substitutions  that  even  if  we  could  certainly 
determine  its  reading,  we  could  not  rely  on  it  as  surely  as  we  usually 
can  on  that  of  y,  which,  we  have  seen,  has  very  few  errors.  And, 
further,  when  x  and  y  differ,  with  readings  between  which  there  is 
little  or  no  choice,  if  z  supports  either,  it  almost  invariably  supports  y. 
All  probabiHty  therefore  favors  y's  "faste."  The  CT  for  the  half- 
line  therefore  should  read,  "seynide  hym  faste." 

Another  interesting  problem  may  be  found  in  6 .  67  (70) : 

panne  shalt  Pou  blenche  at  a  bergh  here  no  fals  wytnesse. 

"bergh  WDi]  berwh,"  L;  "berwe,"  D;  "bowrne,"  TH2;  "brige," 
T2;  "brook,"  H3;  "bowhe,"I;  "brok,"V;  " berghe,"  2  (H  defective); 
"at  a  bergh]  abak,"  UR;  A  omits  (U  inserts  "see"  before  "blenche"). 
The  reading  "bourne,"  "brook,"  of  TH2H3V  is  rendered  improb- 
able by  both  the  context  and  the  genealogical  evidence.  The  author 
has  already  used  a  brook  in  his  symbolical  geography,  and  named  it 
"be  buxum  of  speche"  (line  53).  And  of  the  feature  in  our  line, 
whatever  for  the  moment  we  may  consider  it  likely  to  be,  he  says 
in  the  two  lines  following: 

He  is  friHd  in  wit>  floreynes  &  ot'ere  fees  manye; 
Loke  fou  plukke  no  plante  Pare  for  peril  of  J^i  soule. 

This  description  is  obviously  unsuitable  for  a  brook,  but  perfectly 
appropriate  for  a  hill. 

The  genealogical  evidence  of  L  and  WDi,  forming  two  branches 
of  y,  favors  "bergh";  "bowhe"  of  I  may  have  an  "o"  for  an  "er"; 
"berwe"  of  D  supports  that  reading  for  the  ancestor  of  TH2D,  for 

419 


160  Thomas  A.  Knott 

D  branches  off  collaterally  with  TH2,  being  by  itself  of  as  much 
genealogical  weight  as  TH2  combined;  "brige"  of  T2  might  have 
resulted  from  an  erroneous  expansion  of  "b'ge,"  which  even  might 
have  been  miswritten  as  "b'ge."  It  is  quite  conceivable  that 
"brok"  of  V  and  H3  may  have  been  the  result  of  a  similar  error. 
The  abbreviation  for  "er"  might  have  been  misread  for  that  of 
"ur,"  "ru,"  while  "k"  and  "w"  in  fourteenth-century  handwriting 
look  a  great  deal  alike.  The  reading  of  UR,  "abak,"  can  hardly 
be  attributed  to  any  classifiable  sort  of  error,  though  it  might  be 
a  conjectural  emendation  of  "abrok."  z  has  "berghe."  y  and  z 
therefore  support  "bergh,"  and  this  is  to  be  adopted  into  the  CT, 
"Other  things  being  equal,"  the  genealogical  evidence  must 
determine  the  CT.  But  sometimes  other  things  are  not  equal.  We 
may  perhaps  close  with  the  discussion  of  a  problem  of  this  kind. 
It  occurs  in  2.198  (212): 

And  ek  wep  &  wrang  whan  heo  was  atachid. 

''wrang,"    THaDURWDiz];     "wrong    hire    hondes,"    LAIHV    (T2 
omits  the  line). 

Here,  so  far  as  the  MSS  strictly  of  the  A-text  are  concerned, 
"wrong  hire  hondes"  is  critically  attested  in  the  Original.  But 
other  elements  must  enter  the  problem.  On  the  principle  of  the 
lectio  difficilior,  "hire  hondes"  would  naturally  be  rejected  by  the 
text  critic  if  the  evidence  were  evenly  balanced,  for  the  inclusion  of 
these  words  in  the  phrase  certainly  makes  it  the  "easier  reading." 
That  is,  its  presence  would  be  more  probably  the  result  of  scribal 
conjectural  emendation  than  its  absence  would  be  due  to  intentional 
omission.  The  absence  of  the  words  in  TII2DUR  and  in  WDi  is 
evidence  in  two  of  the  four  subgroups  of  y  in  favor  of  its  omission. 
On  the  other  hand,  L  and  I  are  the  other  two  subgroups  of  y,  and  are 
of  equal  genealogical  weight  with  the  former  two  subgroups.  L,  I, 
and  VH  (group  x),  and  also  MS  A,  a  member  of  the  same  subgroup 
with  TH2DUR,  all  attest  the  presence  of  the  words  in  the  CT. 
Might  not  the  omission  of  the  words  be  due  to  the  carelessness  of 
two  scribes  at  some  points  of  transmission  of  parts  of  group  y? 
On  the  other  hand,  the  third  main  group  z  omits  the  words;  one 
and  one-half  main  groups  support  each  reading.     Finally,  in  a  line 

420 


The  A- Version  of  "Piers  the  Plowman"  161 

outside  of  "Piers  Plowman,"  fully  attested  by  MS  evidence  and 
meter,  the  verb  "wringen"  appears  in  this  meaning  without  "the 
handes": 

And  lat  him  care  and  wepe  and  wringe  and  waille.' 

We  must,  I  feel,  attribute  the  presence  of  "hire  hondes"  to  several 
independent  inclinations  to  emend,  or,  rather,  to  write  the  obvious 
for  the  slightly  more  idiomatic  phrase,  on  the  part  of  the  facile 
editor-scribe.  The  CT  therefore  must  omit  "hire  hondes."  Here 
"other  things  are  not  equal." 

Thomas  A.  Knott 
University  of  Chicago 

1  "The  Clerk's  Tale,"  E  1212,  Oxford  Chaucer.      Note  also  Le  Morte  Arthur  (Harl. 
MS  2252),  Furnivall,  line  3931,  and  line  3746: 

Alle  nyght  gan  he  wepe  and  wrynge 
And  went  aboute  as  he  were  wode. 

Also  Cursor  Mundi,  23962: 

I  se  him  [Christ]  hang,  i  se  hir  [Mary]  wring, 
{)e  car  all  of  I)at  cumli  king.— MSS  GCE. 

And  observe  the  scribal  editing  in  MS  F: 

hir  loueli  fingris  ho  did  wringe,  etc. 


421 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


M^-l. 


—  w  1^   ULJ 


HOI/2  4 '04-6 m 


6■l^n' 


6^Mfe 


HEC'O  LD 


M    6"65-3pj| 


LD  21A-60m-4,'64 
(E4555sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DTTE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  PlSFoP  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED   FOR   FAII  no^\.  ^ 

THIS   BOOK  ON   THE  DATE  DUE    TmIV^""^ 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CEN^i^^' J         PENALTY 

DAY    AND    TO    $[  OO    on    tm    °  ''°'"''^" 

OVERDUE.  '^    ^"^    SEVENTH     DAY 


jGTM 

JUN~Tl969B  7 


LD  21-l00m-7,'33 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO— i#^      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2                               3 

4 

5                               6 

ALL  BOOKS  AAAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  end  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

7h 

REC  CIR  M 

15 '83 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  12/80        BERKELEY  CA  94720 

